NEW
POLITICAL PARTIES REGAIN THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE UNLIMITED DONATIONS FROM INDIVIDUALS

On March 2, the U.S.
Court of Appeals, D.C. circuit, ruled that a new political party can accept
unlimited donations from individuals, as least as long as it doesnít have
a presidential nominee. Unity08 v Federal Election Commission, 08-5526.
The decision is 15 pages long and was written by Judge Stephen Williams, a
Reagan appointee. It was also signed by Douglas Ginsburg, another Reagan appointee,
and Karen Henderson, a Bush Sr. appointee.

This is the first time
the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C., has ever ruled for a minor party or an independent
candidate on any issue. It is also the first U.S. Court of Appeals victory
for a minor party or an independent candidate, from any circuit, since
2008. In 2008, the 9th and the 6th circuits ruled in
favor of Ralph Nader on petition circulator residency.

The Reform Party was
founded by Ross Perot in September 1995. Perot spent lavishly on the new party.
At the time there was no federal law controlling how much money any individual
could donate to any political party. But in 2002, Congress passed the
McCain-Feingold law, which set restrictions on how much money an individual
could contribute to a political party. That limit was $25,000 per year, an
amount indexed to inflation. But the McCain-Feingold law only controlled how
much money an individual could contribute to an already-established party.
It still didnít restrict donations to a political party that wasnít a "National
Committee" as defined by the Federal Elections Commission.

The Federal Election
Commission makes a case-by-case determination on whether a political party
qualifies as a "National Committee." Ever since the FEC has had
this authority, in 1976, it has only given "national committee"
status to eight parties.

The eight parties, in
order in which they received their status, are the Democratic, Republican,
Libertarian, Socialist, Natural Law, Constitution, Reform, and Green Parties.

In 2006, the FEC ruled
that new parties are subject to even more stringent limits than old parties.
The FEC told Unity08, a new political party, that it could only receive $5,000
from any individual per year. The FEC decided that because Unity08 wasnít
a "National Committee", it must fit into some category. So the FEC
said Unity08 must be a "Political Committee." The trouble with that
is that a Political Committee is something that has been formed to work for
a specific candidate for federal office, and Unity08 had no specific candidate
in mind. It is because Unity08 never had any candidate that the D.C. Circuit
ruled against the FEC.

The 2006 FEC ruling caused
Unity08 to suspend its work of trying to qualify for the ballot. At the time,
it had only qualified in two states, Mississippi and Florida. Although Unity08
did almost no more political work, it remained in existence, and continued
to fight the FEC ruling. The U.S. District Court in D.C. upheld the FEC ruling
on October 16, 2008, but that ruling has now been reversed.

It is possible that the
ruling will be appealed, either to the entire U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C.
circuit, or to the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Solicitor General will decide.
Any appeal to the full D.C. Circuit must be made by April 17. An appeal to
the U.S. Supreme Court would be due by May 31.

Anyone reading this article
might wonder if any existing "National Committtee" might be motivated
to give up its status as a National Committee, to escape the McCain-Feingold
limits on parties.

It is likely that the
FEC would not permit an existing National Committee to opt out, if the FEC
felt that the motivation for the request was to escape the donation limits.
However, there is a precedent that a National Committee may retract its status.
The Libertarian Party gave up its National Committee status in the mid-1980ís,
but regained it a few years later. The advantage of being a National Committee
is that a National Committee can give bigger donations to its candidates,
relative to what other groups may give.

TWO
OTHER BIG CAMPAIGN FINANCE DECISIONS

On March 26, two other
important campaign finance decisions were handed down from federal courts.

Limits on Donations
to Non-PartyGroups: The U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, invalidated
federal campaign laws that limit contributions to committees that make independent
expenditures about candidates for federal office. SpeechNow.org v FEC,
08-5223. The decision was in front of all nine full-time judges of the
circuit, and was unanimous. The Court upheld disclosure requirements for such
groups. The law that was invalidated limited individual contributions to such
groups at $5,000.

Limits on Donations
to Political Parties: the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., upheld
federal laws that restrict donations to political parties that are recognized
as national committees by the FEC. Republican National Committee v FEC,
08-1953. The decision says that because the U.S. Supreme Court already
upheld these laws in 2003, only that Court can strike these limits. This case
will probably go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

U.S.
SUPREME COURT SHOWS INTEREST IN BALLOT ACCESS CASE

On March 19, the U.S.
Supreme Court asked Mississippi to file a response in Moore v Hosemann,
09-982. This is the first time the U.S. Supreme Court has asked a state
government to respond to a ballot access cert petition filed by a minor party
or independent candidate, since May 2004. Mississippiís response is due April
19.

The case concerns whether
Mississippi should have kept Brian Moore, the Socialist Party presidential
candidate in 2008, off its ballot. He filed his presidential elector paperwork
ten minutes too late.

If the U.S. Supreme Court
asks the defendant to respond, the odds rise to 40% that the Court will then
accept the case for review. The last time a ballot access cert petition filed
by a minor party or independent candidate got this much interest from the
Court was Zulick v Wise, 03-1300. That was a ballot access case from
Pennsylvania. However, in that case, after Pennsylvania filed a response,
the Court declined to hear the case (note: there have also been instances
when the Court asked a state to respond to requests for injunctive relief).

The Supreme Court hasnít
agreed to hear a ballot access case involving a minor party or independent
candidate since 1991, when it agreed to hear Norman v Reed, a case
from Illinois.

The issues before the
Supreme Court in Brian Mooreís case are procedural and do not involve the
merits of the dispute itself. However, if the Court hears the case, that will
send a signal that the Court does care about voting rights for minor party
candidates.

One of the procedural
issues is whether the state should have reimbursed Moore for the costs of
hiring a process server. The other procedural issue is whether, when the 5th
circuit ruled that the case is not moot but that it belongs in state court,
should the 5th circuit have filed the case in state court for Moore,
instead of telling Moore to file it himself.

SOUTH
CAROLINA GAIN

On March 1, a 3-judge
U.S. District Court ruled that South Carolina cannot enforce a new ballot
access restriction because the state didnít ask the Voting Rights Section
of the U.S. Justice Department for permission. South Carolina is one of the
states that must pre-clear all its election law changes. Gray v South Carolina
Election Commission, 3:09-2126.

The particular restriction
says that a candidate who wants to seek the nomination of more than one political
party must file a separate declaration of candidacy for each party. The old
rule just required one declaration of candidacy, so a candidate had the flexibility
later to decide which nominations to seek.

No one would even have
noticed that South Carolina changed its rules and then failed to pre-clear
the change, except that in 2008 when a Green Party nominee tried to get the
nomination of the Democratic Party as well, the state said he couldnít do
that because he had only filed one Declaration of Candidacy. That candidate,
Eugene Platt, has a separate case pending in the 4th circuit over
whether he should have been allowed to be on the November ballot. That case
will be argued on May 11.

The recent decision in
the Gray case does not guarantee that Platt will win his case, but
the Gray decision helps. Platt was kept off the November ballot, even
though he was the Green Party nominee and the Green Party is a qualified party,
because of another law: if someone gets one party nomination, and then tries
and fails to get another partyís nomination, the first nomination is void.
Because Platt lost the Democratic primary, he also couldnít run as a Green.

DOE
v REED AMICI

In Doe v Reed, the
case that the U.S. Supreme Court will hear on April 28 on the issue of whether
petition signatures should be private, 47 organizations have filed amici
briefs on the side of privacy. Amici briefs in favor of public exposure
arenít due yet.

GEORGIA
LOSS

On March 22, the 11th
circuit upheld Georgiaís petition requirement for independent and minor party
candidates for U.S. House. Coffield v Handel, 09-13277. The decision
is only three paragraphs long, and is not signed.

The decision says, "Coffield
claims that Georgiaís 5% rule is too burdensome; she alleges no independent
candidate for the House of Representatives in Georgia has met the requirement
since 1964 and that no minor party candidate has ever met it. But she does
not allege how many candidates have tried."

The implication is that
if she had presented evidence that many candidates had tried and failed, perhaps
the decision would have been different. However, the U.S. Supreme Court did
not instruct lower courts to consider how many petitions failed. The Court
said in 1974 in Storer v Brown, "Could a reasonably diligent independent
candidate be expected to satisfy the signature requirement, or will it be
only rarely that the unaffiliated candidate will succeed in getting on the
ballot? Past experience will be a helpful, if not always unerring, guide:
it will be one thing if independent candidates have qualified with some regularity
and quite a different matter if they have not."

The 11th circuit
decision does not mention Storer v Brown. The Storer test has
been cited by the U.S. Supreme Court as recently as 2008.

Coffield presented evidence
showing that no petitioning candidate for U.S. House anywhere in the nation
has ever overcome a petition requirement greater than 12,919 signatures. The
decision does not mention that evidence. The Georgia requirement for Coffieldís
district in 2008 was over 15,000 valid signatures.

Coffield will ask for
a rehearing before all the full-time judges of the 11th circuit.

In 2008, in Coffieldís
district, only one candidate appeared on the November ballot.

"TOP-TWO"
LAWSUITS

During March, courts
in California and Washington made decisions involving "top-two"
election systems. "Top-two" systems provide that all candidates
run on a single primary ballot, and all voters use that ballot. Then, only
the top two vote-getters can be on the November ballot.

Washington: this
state started using a "top-two" system in 2008. A lawsuit is currently
pending in U.S. District Court over whether the system violates the associational
rights of political parties as applied, and also whether the system violates
the U.S. Supreme Courtís ballot access precedents, and finally whether the
system violates the trademark of political parties that have trademarked their
names. The case is Washington State Republican Party v Washington State
and Washington State Grange.

On March 9, Judge John
C. Coughenour rejected an attempt by the state and the Grange to eliminate
the ballot access and trademark issues from the case. The Judge wrote, "Because
of the partiesí continued ability to appeal those claims at least once, the
Court would not under any circumstances require deletion of those claims from
pleadings."

California: this
state does not use a "top-two" system, but on June 8, voters will
decide whether to use that system. On March 16, the California Court of Appeals
re-wrote the ballot language, so that the ballot will say, "Proposition
14. Elections. Increases Right to Participate in Primary Elections. Changes
the primary election process for congressional, statewide, and legislative
races. Allows all voters to choose any candidate regardless of the candidateís
or voterís political party preference. Ensures that the two candidates receiving
the greatest number of votes will appear on the general election ballot regardless
of party preference."

Opponents of Proposition
14 had tried and failed to persuade the Court that the ballot tell voters
that the measure ends the right of political parties to appear on the November
ballot.

Opponents wanted this
language: "Elections. Primaries. Changes the primary election process
for congressional, statewide and legislative races. Allows all voters to choose
any candidate regardless of the candidateís or voterís political party preference.
A candidate may choose to have his or her party preference, or lack thereof,
indicated on the ballot. Provides that the two candidates receiving the greatest
number of votes will appear on the general election ballot regardless of party
preference. Eliminates the existing constitutional right of a political party
that participated in the primary election to participate in the general election."

The California Constitution
now contains a provision that says a political party that participates in
the primary has a right to have the candidate who got the most votes in that
partyís primary appear on the November ballot. It is unfortunate that voters
will not be told that this provision will vanish if Proposition 14 passes.
The provision guaranteeing parties the right to place their nominee on the
November ballot was passed by the voters in 2004 with a 67.5% "yes"
vote.

OTHER
LAWSUIT NEWS

Alabama: the Coalition
for Free & Open Elections held its annual meeting on February 28, and
voted to spend $2,000 for a cert petition to the U.S. Supreme Court in Shugart
v Chapman. Law professor Mark Brown will write the brief pro bono.
COFOE thanks its donors. The issue in the Shugart case is whether
a state may require more signatures for an independent candidate for U.S.
House, than for an independent candidate for President. Alabama has six U.S.
House districts, and yet requires more signatures for an office in just one-sixth
of the state, than it does for a statewide office.

Arizona: on March
4, a Superior Court ruled that the state has the authority to tell Tucson
that it must switch its city elections from partisan elections, to non-partisan
elections. The city is appealing. The case is City of Tucson v State.

California: on
March 11, a Superior Court in Sacramento ruled that the part of the state
Constitution that requires a candidate to have lived in the district for one
year before running for the legislature violates the U.S. Constitution. The
case is Fuller v Bowen, 34-2010-80000452. The lawsuit was filed by
Heidi Fuller, a candidate for State Senate in the Republican primary. One
of her opponents is an Assemblyman who admits that he did not live in the
district until December 30, 2009. Fuller had filed the lawsuit to remove that
opponent from the ballot. She will appeal.

Colorado: the
lawsuit against the state law that requires independent candidates to have
not been registered in a party for an entire year is moving quickly. All briefs
are due on April 2, and the oral argument will be in late April. The case
is Riddle v Secretary of State, 09-cv-2680.

Colorado (2):
on March 15, a federal lawsuit was filed against a state law that does not
permit out-of-state residents to circulate initiative petitions. Independence
Institute v Buescher, 10-cv-609.

Delaware: the
Constitution, Green, and Working Families expect to file a lawsuit against
the new law that doubles the number of registered voters needed for a party
to be recognized. The lawsuit will not argue against the new requirement itself,
but will argue that the state violates due process by making the new requirement
go into effect immediately, instead of waiting until 2011.

Louisiana: on
March 15, the 5th circuit refused to rehear Libertarian Party
v Dardenne, the case over whether the state should have printed the Libertarian,
Socialist, and Reform Party presidential candidates on the 2008 ballot. The
case will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Massachusetts:
on February 26, the U.S. Supreme Court asked the state to file a response
in Simmons v Galvin, the case over whether the Voting Rights Act applies
to laws that prevent felons from voting. The First Circuit had ruled 2-1 that
the Act does not apply to this issue.

Michigan: on March
9, a State Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the list of which voters voted
a Democratic presidential primary ballot in 2008, and which voters chose a
Republican presidential primary ballot, is public information. The case is
Practical Political Consulting v Land, 291176.

Montana: the lawsuit
against the stateís March petition deadline for non-presidential independent
is now in the 9th circuit. Kelly v McCulloch, 10-35174.
The lower court had said the plaintiffs lack standing.

Nevada: a Superior
Court will hear Fasano v Ashjian on April 14. The issue is whether
the Tea Party candidate for U.S. Senate should remain on the ballot. The Secretary
of State put him on the ballot, but the Independent American Party sued to
remove him, on the grounds that he didnít change his registration from "Republican"
to "Tea Party" until March 2, and the law required him to have done
that by March 1.

New Hampshire:
the Libertarian Party case on whether unqualified parties may use a stand-in
presidential candidate on a petition is now in the First Circuit. The March
1 B.A.N. was in error when it said the Magistrateís unfavorable February
17 could be appealed to a District Court Judge. New Hampshire federal court
rules differ from most other districts. The case is Libertarian Party of
N.H. v Gardiner, 10-1360. The First Circuit now has two cases on this
subject; the other is from Massachusetts.

New Jersey: on
March 16, a Superior Court ruled that the U.S. Constitution does not necessarily
prevent states from providing for recall of members of Congress. The Court
ordered the state to furnish petition blanks to a committee that wants to
recall U.S. Senator Robert Menendez. Committee to Recall v Wells, Mercer
Co., A-2254-09T1.

Oregon: on March
24, a U.S. District court upheld a law that requires paid initiative circulators
to attend a class, before working. The court also upheld a law banning people
who have ever been convicted of fraud from working. Walker v State, 08-06135.

North Carolina:
on February 11, a third constitutional ballot access case was filed in this
state. Mark Brody is attacking the petition requirement that independents
for the legislature submit a petition of 4% of the number of registered voters.
His case is Brody v State Board of Elections, state court, Mecklenberg
Co., 10cvs-3216. Brody completed this petition as an independent candidate
for the State House in 2008, and he polled 30%. He is running again in 2010,
and he argues that he has already shown he has a modicum of voter support,
so why should he be required to submit another petition?

Ohio: on March
25, the State Supreme Court restored a Libertarian Party candidate for the
legislature to the Libertarian primary ballot. The Board of Election had removed
him because his petitions forgot to fill in the blank asking for the date
of the election. State ex rel Eshleman v Fornshell, 2010-0438.

Pennsylvania:
on March 22, a Republican candidate for U.S. House, 1st district,
was removed from the primary ballot because some of her circulators donít
live in her district. However, in 2002, a U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania
struck down a state law regulating residence of circulators for independent
candidates. The Republican candidate, Pia Varna, expects to file a federal
lawsuit against the residency requirement for primary ballot access circulators
very soon.

CONNECTICUT
LIKELY TO MAKE PUBLIC FUNDING EQUAL

On March 18, the Connecticut
Joint Government Administration and Election Committee approved HB 5021, which
deletes the parts of the public funding program that discriminate against
independent candidates and against most minor party candidates. The bill eliminates
the parts of the old law that require massive petitions before independent
candidates can participate in the public funding program. Governor Jodi Rell
is strongly backing this bill.

COLORADO
LIKELY TO EASE BALLOT ACCESS FOR INDEPENDENTS

On March 3, the Colorado
House passed HB 1271 by a vote of 58-7. Existing law says no one may be an
independent candidate (except for President) if the candidate has been registered
into a qualified party for even one day, during the year before filing. The
bill eases that time period to approximately five months. The bill has a hearing
in the Senate State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee on March 29,
and it is expected to pass.

The seven "no"
votes on the House floor were cast by one Democrat, Edward Vigil, and six
Republicans: Brian Del Grosso, James Kerr, Glenn Vaad, Kevin Priola, Mike
May, and Larry Liston.

If the bill passes, California
will be the only state that disqualifies independent candidates based on how
they were registered during the year before the election.

TWO
STATES MAKE DEADLINES EARLIER

During March, the legislatures
of Minnesota and Vermont passed laws to move primaries from September to August.
The bills take effect immediately. They both move the independent candidate
deadlines to an earlier date. The Vermont bill, S.117, moves the petition
deadlines from September to June, although that bill hasnít been signed yet
by the Governor. The Minnesota bill, SF 2251, moves petition deadlines for
office other than president from July to June, and was signed March 3.

BURLINGTON
REPEALS INSTANT RUNOFF VOTE

On March 2, the voters
of Burlington, Vermont, repealed Instant Runoff Voting, by a vote of 3,972
to 3,669. The last Mayoral election had been won by the Progressive Party,
and that outcome seems to have turned the Burlington Democratic Party against
IRV.

2010
PETITIONING FOR STATEWIDE OFFICE

STATE

REQUIREMENTS

SIGNATURES
COLLECTED

DEADLINES

FULL
PARTY

CAND

LIB'T

GREEN

CONSTI

WK
FAM

Party

Indp.

Ala.

37,513

37,513

100

0

0

0

June
1

June
1

Alaska

(reg)
9,786

#3,128

already
on

*2,516

0

0

June
1

Aug.
24

Ariz.

20,449

(est)
#25,500

already
on

*finished

*1,700

0

Mar.
11

May
25

Ark.

10,000

10,000

*500

*1,000

0

0

June
30

May
3

Calif.

(reg)
88,991

173,041

already
on

already
on

in
court

0

Jan.
6

Aug.
6

Colo.

(reg)
1,000

1,000

already
on

already
on

already
on

0

June
1

June
15

Conn.

no
procedure

#7,500

already
on

already
on

0

0

-
- -

Aug.
11

Del.

(est)
(reg) 300

(est)
6,200

already
on

*571

*320

*550

Aug.
10

July
15

D.C.

no
procedure

#3,000

canít
start

already
on

canít
start

canít
start

-
- -

Aug.
25

Florida

be
organized

pay
fee

already
on

already
on

already
on

0

Apr.
30

Apr.
30

Georgia

57,582

#44,089

already
on

0

0

0

July
13

July
13

Hawaii

692

25

already
on

*finished

*too
late

0

Apr.
1

July
19

Idaho

13,102

1,000

already
on

0

already
on

0

Aug.
27

March
19

Illinois

no
procedure

#25,000

canít
start

already
on

*200

*0

-
- -

June
21

Indiana

no
procedure

#32,742

already
on

0

0

0

-
- -

June
30

Iowa

no
procedure

#1,500

0

0

0

0

-
- -

Aug.
13

Kansas

16,994

5,000

already
on

0

0

0

June
1

Aug.
2

Ky.

no
procedure

#5,000

0

0

0

0

-
- -

Aug.
10

La.

(reg)
1,000

pay
$500

already
on

already
on

500

0

May
20

Aug.
20

Maine

27,544

#4,000

0

already
on

0

0

Dec
11, 09

May
27

Md.

10,000

(est)
35,000

already
on

already
on

already
on

0

Aug.
2

Aug.
2

Mass.

(est)
(reg) 40,000

#10,000

already
on

*1,000

80

20

Feb.
1

July
27

Mich.

38,024

30,000

already
on

already
on

already
on

0

July
15

July
17

Minn.

145,519

#2,000

0

0

0

0

*Jun
1

*Jun
1

Miss.

be
organized

800

already
on

already
on

already
on

0

April
9

April
9

Mo.

10,000

10,000

already
on

*1,400

already
on

0

July
26

July
26

Mont.

5,000

#15,359

already
on

*too
late

already
on

*too
late

Mar.
18

Mar.
18

Nebr.

5,921

4,000

0

0

0

0

Aug.
2

Aug.
24

Nev.

9,083

9,083

already
on

already
on

already
on

0

June
11

Mar.
12

N. Hamp.

20,394

#3,000

*250

0

0

0

Aug.
4

Aug.
4

N.J.

no
procedure

#1,300

*200

*100

*70

0

-
- -

June
2

N. M.

4,151

16,764

*finished

*in
court

already
on

0

Apr.
1

June
3

N.Y.

no
procedure

#15,000

canít
start

canít
start

canít
start

already
on

-
- -

Aug.
17

No. Car.

85,379

85,379

already
on

0

0

0

May
14

June
10

No. Dak.

7,000

#4,000

*finished

0

0

0

Apr.
9

Sep.
3

Ohio

*
be organized

5,000

already
on

already
on

already
on

*too
late

*Feb.
3

May
3

Okla.

73,134

pay
fee

0

0

0

0

May
1

June
9

Oregon

20,640

(est)
19,000

already
on

already
on

already
on

already
on

Aug.
26

Aug.
26

Penn.

no
procedure

#19,056

*0

*600

*0

*0

-
- -

Aug.
2

R.I.

23,589

#1,000

0

0

0

0

May
28

July
22

So. Car.

10,000

10,000

already
on

already
on

already
on

already
on

May
2

July
15

So. Dak.

8,389

3,356

0

0

already
on

0

Mar.
30

June
8

Tenn.

in
court

25

*in
court

*in
court

*in
court

0

unsettled

April
1

Texas

43,991

43,991

already
on

*500

*0

*0

May
24

May
10

Utah

2,000

#1,000

already
on

0

already
on

0

Feb.
15

March
15

Vermont

be
organized

#500

already
on

0

already
on

already
on

Jan.
1

*Jun
17

Virginia

no
procedure

#11,000

*800

0

0

0

-
- -

June
8

Wash.

no
procedure

pay
fee

0

0

0

0

-
- -

May
15

West Va.

no
procedure

#7,250

0

already
on

*400

0

-
- -

May
10

Wisc.

10,000

#2,000

already
on

already
on

canít
start

canít
start

June
1

July
13

Wyo.

4,988

4,988

already
on

0

*4,400

0

June
1

Aug.
23

TOTAL
STATES ON

29

17

16

4

``

`

#partisan label is permitted
on the ballot (other than "independent").
*change from the Jan. 1 2010 chart.
Mississippi, New Jersey, Virginia, and West Virginia have no statewide race
in 2010, so the entry is for a full slate for U.S. House.

HOUSE
OF LORDS MAY BE ELECTED USING PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION

The British Labour Party
government announced on March 12 that it will introduce a bill to provide
for an elected House of Lords, of 300 members. Elections for the House of
Lords would use Proportional Representation. One-third of the Lords would
be elected at each House of Commons election. Great Britain has been the only
populous country in western or central Europe that has never used Proportional
Representation for its national elections. If the bill is enacted, this event
would be the biggest gain for Proportional Representation in many years.

AMERICAN
INDEPENDENT PARTY DISPUTE GETS CLOSER TO RESOLUTION

On March 26, a Superior
Court in Solano County, California, ruled that the lawsuit to settle the question
of the identity of the true state officers of the American Independent Party
may proceed. The case was filed on March 16, 2009, by the faction of the party
loyal to the national Constitution Party, against the officers recognized
by the Secretary of State. Those officers had declared Alan Keyes to be the
partyís presidential candidate last year, so Keyes was on the California ballot
instead of Chuck Baldwin.

The case has been stalled
for a year because the defendants avoided being served. However, the judge
ruled that the defendants were properly served last year. The case is King
v Robinson, 033119. It was filed in Solano County because that is the
home county of Markham Robinson, state chair of the Keyes faction.

To a certain extent,
control of the party will also be influenced by the results of the June 8,
2010 primary for the AIP. The partyís partisan nominees are automatically
on the state central committee, and the nominees may also appoint other members
of that committee. Twenty-one individuals are running for partisan public
office in the partyís primary, and the U.S. Senate, gubernatorial, and Controller
primaries are contested.

NEW
YORK LIBERTARIANS HAVE CONTEST FOR GUBERNATORIAL SLOT

The New York Libertarian
Party has never been ballot-qualified, and it nominates by convention. This
year, there is a vigorous contest between Warren Redlich, an attorney who
is also running in the Republican primary, and Kristin Davis, who has the
backing of Roger Stone, a long-time political consultant who was once a Republican
but who no longer feels loyalty to the Republican Party. Each candidate believes
that he or she is capable of polling 50,000 votes in the November election.
A group whose gubernatorial nominee polls 50,000 attains (or retains) qualified
party status. There is no other way to get that status. The convention is
on Saturday, April 24, in Albany.

LOUISIANA
LEGISLATOR SWITCHES FROM DEMOCRAT TO INDEPENDENT

On March 17, Louisiana
State Senator Troy Hebert changed his registration from "Democrat"
to "independent." He is the first Louisiana State Senator to be
a member of neither major party since 1916, when there were 5 Progressive
Party State Senators in the Louisiana Senate. All Louisiana legislators are
up for election in 2011.

POSSIBLE
2010 WINS BY INDEPENDENT CANDIDATES

New York: Jay
Schneiderman has been a member of the Suffolk County legislature since 2003.
He is considering whether to run for U.S. House, First District. If he runs,
he would not try to obtain the nomination of either major party. He is very
popular and was re-elected in 2008 with the nomination of all five ballot-qualified
parties. He is doing polling to determine whether he could win as a non-major
party candidate. The incumbent, Timothy Bishop, is a Democrat.

Rhode Island:
Lincoln Chafee, independent for Governor, is leading in a Rasmussen Poll conducted
in early March. He has 37% in a four-person general election.

SUBSCRIBING
TO BAN WITH PAYPAL

If you use Paypal, you
can subscribe to B.A.N., or renew, with Paypal. If you use a credit
card in connection with Paypal, use richardwinger@yahoo.com.
If you don't use a credit card in conjunction with Paypal, use sub@richardwinger.com.